The solution for Iraq is to work toward withdrawal. Not toward victory. We just have to swallow our pride on this and take the consequences of the mess we've created.

But the main solution is that next time something like this happens, our senators, from both parties say, "Wait. Before we do this we need an exit strategy. I know you believe there's no way we can fail here. But we need a clear definition of what we want to accomplish, a schedule for getting out when it's accomplished, and schedule for getting out in case we fail to accomplish it over a pre-determined period of time or when set of withdrawal criteria are met. Without such a basic strategy, I will refuse to support this action."

That's the solution. To learn something. And never, ever let someone like Bush fool us again.

Exactly! That's why I think all these threads are important. Not to just bash Bush but so people get it hammered into their heads ( given that they elected him twice it seems that's what is required ) that this wasn't the best kind of star to hitch your wagon to. Not by a long shot!

We need to remember so we don't make this kind of mistake again!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Please don't even try to tell me what I've been saying. What I've said all along is that this war didn't have the backing Bush needed without WMD. I don't neeed to prove it. Any more than you need proof to know your hand will be gone if you stick it in a lawn mower while running.

Bullshit. Do I need to go back and find the actual quotes? You've said, in THIS thead that WMD was the ONLY reason. Jesus.

Quote:

Everyone thought Saddam had weapons because that's what the Bush administration was saying.

I love you just rewrite facts and expect people to go along with them. The Bush Administration relied on intelligence, and came to the judgement that Saddam had weapons. Congress saw the same intel they did. Don't pretend that they only saw what Bush wanted them to see. Hillary Clinton herself said she did her own research and came to the conclusion that Saddam had to be taken out.

Quote:

If Bush wasn't able to come up with the WMD aspect it would have been business as usual. Containment. Face it SDW. Bush needed that other reason. I don't care how he would have talked to the country. He wouldn't have gotten anywhere. And yes I do know that!

OK, that's an opinion you hold. That's fine...it seems reasonable, though I don't agree. What I object to is you presenting it as fact. It's not a fact. It's a supposition. This is a prime example of your inability to distinguish between the two.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Bullshit. Do I need to go back and find the actual quotes? You've said, in THIS thead that WMD was the ONLY reason. Jesus.

I love you just rewrite facts and expect people to go along with them. The Bush Administration relied on intelligence, and came to the judgement that Saddam had weapons. Congress saw the same intel they did. Don't pretend that they only saw what Bush wanted them to see. Hillary Clinton herself said she did her own research and came to the conclusion that Saddam had to be taken out.

OK, that's an opinion you hold. That's fine...it seems reasonable, though I don't agree. What I object to is you presenting it as fact. It's not a fact. It's a supposition. This is a prime example of your inability to distinguish between the two.

Everything I've said did happen!

Jesus! SDW do I have to go to that website again and look up the timeline for you??????

Also quit twisting what I say to fit your rebuttal! I said WMD was the only reason that mattered. Because the president couldn't have possibly got the support ( Hilary doing her own research ) he did without this! I'm not saying he held anything back ( ) I'm saying he hard sold this stuff and embellished it with a little reference to 911 and terrorism to spike the punch! Any thinking person could see it needed more verification because the inspectors were saying the exact opposite. Also letting people believe Iraq was a threat to us ( a quote from this forum at the time " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start blooming in your backyard " ) is just irresponsible! But he did it and even encouraged it to up the odds that we'd be paranoid enough to go to war.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Jesus! SDW do I have to go to that website again and look up the timeline for you??????

Yes, you do.

Quote:

Also quit twisting what I say to fit your rebuttal! I said WMD was the only reason that mattered.

jimmac wrote:

Quote:

The only reason this war got off the ground is the percieved threat of WMD.

It's the only reason that matters because with out it Bush wouldn't have got any backing.

Yeah, that means THE ONLY REASON. There is no material difference between the "only reason" and the "only reason that matters." It's the same argument. And the second statement is still not fact, it's your opinion.

Quote:

Because the president couldn't have possibly got the support ( Hilary doing her own research ) he did without this!

Opinion, and directly contradicted by what Hillary said. If she did her own research, Bush's reasons weren't an issue. If she had other reasons, she should list them.

Quote:

I'm not saying he held anything back ( ) I'm saying he hard sold this stuff and embellished it with a little reference to 911 and terrorism to spike the punch!

GASP! They were making a case for war! They tried to communicate their message to the people! And they said 9/11 changed the way we view threats! OMFG!

Quote:

Any thinking person could see it needed more verification because the inspectors were saying the exact opposite.

No they weren't. They were saying nothing had been found. Gee, that's a surprise. Hans Blix, the 22nd choice for the job, had never found any weapons in his career. Hmmm.

Quote:

Also letting people believe Iraq was a threat to us ( a quote from this forum at the time " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start blooming in your backyard " ) is just irresponsible! But he did it and even encouraged it to up the odds that we'd be paranoid enough to go to war.

You only consider it irresponsible because you think the Admin. KNEW Saddam didn't actually have any weapons. However, assuming they believed it sincerely, why is such a statement unthinkable? The position was that Saddam, who clearly hated the United States (he openly praised 9/11, as you may recall), would pass off these weapons to a terrorist network. This was a possibility before, but the position of the government after 9/11 was not to wait for that threat. There was no other nation that presented that threat. We even had better relations with NK than we did with Iraq. We had relations with Pakistan as well.

So once again, we had a situation. We had a brutal dictator (fact) that was violating UN resolutions (fact), praising 9/11(fact), judged to be pursuing WMD(fact), firing on our aircraft (fact), etc. We had tried sanctions, inspections, more inspections, limited bombing campaigns during the Clinton admin, and one more "final" resolution (fact, fact, fact, fact and wait for it...fact). Nothing changed Iraq's behavior (fact!) Nothing. Those are the facts, and you can't change them, jimmac. Given those facts, the government developed the opinion that Saddam was going to have to be taken out. If you disagree, it is your responsibility to present a reasonable alternative. Hint: A reasonable alternative to what should have happened isn't "leave Iraq alone" or "let the incompetent UN WMD scavenger hunt continue."

Really, I'm waiting.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yeah, that means THE ONLY REASON. There is no material difference between the "only reason" and the "only reason that matters." It's the same argument. And the second statement is still not fact, it's your opinion.

Opinion, and directly contradicted by what Hillary said. If she did her own research, Bush's reasons weren't an issue. If she had other reasons, she should list them.

GASP! They were making a case for war! They tried to communicate their message to the people! And they said 9/11 changed the way we view threats! OMFG!

No they weren't. They were saying nothing had been found. Gee, that's a surprise. Hans Blix, the 22nd choice for the job, had never found any weapons in his career. Hmmm.

You only consider it irresponsible because you think the Admin. KNEW Saddam didn't actually have any weapons. However, assuming they believed it sincerely, why is such a statement unthinkable? The position was that Saddam, who clearly hated the United States (he openly praised 9/11, as you may recall), would pass off these weapons to a terrorist network. This was a possibility before, but the position of the government after 9/11 was not to wait for that threat. There was no other nation that presented that threat. We even had better relations with NK than we did with Iraq. We had relations with Pakistan as well.

So once again, we had a situation. We had a brutal dictator (fact) that was violating UN resolutions (fact), praising 9/11(fact), judged to be pursuing WMD(fact), firing on our aircraft (fact), etc. We had tried sanctions, inspections, more inspections, limited bombing campaigns during the Clinton admin, and one more "final" resolution (fact, fact, fact, fact and wait for it...fact). Nothing changed Iraq's behavior (fact!) Nothing. Those are the facts, and you can't change them, jimmac. Given those facts, the government developed the opinion that Saddam was going to have to be taken out. If you disagree, it is your responsibility to present a reasonable alternative. Hint: A reasonable alternative to what should have happened isn't "leave Iraq alone" or "let the incompetent UN WMD scavenger hunt continue."

With the passing of UN Resolution 1284, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) is created to assist in the disarming of Iraq

2000: US Learns that Iraq Has Ordered a Large Shipment of Aluminum Tubes from China

2000

During the 2000 presidential campaign, the Republican Party calls for a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Similarly, the Democratic Partys platform supports using Americas military might against Iraq when and where it is necessary.

17 resolutions, jimmac. Sanctions. Strikes. Inspections. What was a good alternative?

I thought you wouldn't read the important parts. " If I don't see it the thing's not really there! "

Yeah I see!

Weren't we talking about the most recent gulf war? All that stuff happened years before!

Why do you just focus on that?

How about stuff like : " March 22, 2003: Pentagon Official Continues to Assert that US Knows Location of WMDs in Iraq Victoria Clarke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, says during a televised briefing at the Pentagon that the administration knows about “a number of sites” where Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Clarke refuses to provide any estimate of how many sites the US knows of. [Washington Post, 3/23/2003 "

and " Evening February 4, 2003: CIA Officer Reminds Tenet that Source for Mobile Labs is Not Reliable CIA Director George Tenet calls Tyler Drumheller at home and asks for the phone number of Richard Dearlove, the British intelligence chief. Tenet wants to get Dearlove’s approval to use British intelligence in Powell’s speech to the UN. Drumheller takes the opportunity to remind Tenet that the source for the alleged mobile labs, Curveball, is not reliable. “Hey, boss, you’re not going to use that stuff in the speech…? There are real problems with that,” Drumheller says. Tenet, distracted and tired, tells him not to worry. [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 184; Washington Post, 6/25/2006]
Entity Tags: Tyler Drumheller, George J. Tenet, Richard Dearlove
Category Tags: Biological weapons trailers, Powells Speech to UN, Curveball Fabrications "

Gosh those WMD seem to be a big focal point for something you seem to indicate was just a minor issue?

Besides I thought you didn't like delving into the past? Like Cheney's statement from 1994 saying what a mistake it would to go to Iraq.

And yes by the way the inspectors you mention were saying he didn't have anything!

If you want there's quite a bit more damning stuff in that timeline that I could pull up. But what would be the point? You saw some of it last time this came up and I printed for you. Face it SDW you just don't want to look at the reality because it doesn't jibe with your preconceived notions.

A good atlernative would have been something other than the mess we're in right now.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I thought you wouldn't read the important parts. " If I don't see it the thing's not really there! "

Yeah I see!

Weren't we talking about the most recent gulf war? All that stuff happened years before!

Why do you just focus on that?

I DID. This is getting comical now.

Quote:

How about stuff like : " March 22, 2003: Pentagon Official Continues to Assert that US Knows Location of WMDs in Iraq Victoria Clarke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, says during a televised briefing at the Pentagon that the administration knows about a number of sites where Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Clarke refuses to provide any estimate of how many sites the US knows of. [Washington Post, 3/23/2003 "

Uh...what the hell does that prove? That we were wrong? SHOCKING!

q[uote]
and " Evening February 4, 2003: CIA Officer Reminds Tenet that Source for Mobile Labs is Not Reliable CIA Director George Tenet calls Tyler Drumheller at home and asks for the phone number of Richard Dearlove, the British intelligence chief. Tenet wants to get Dearloves approval to use British intelligence in Powells speech to the UN. Drumheller takes the opportunity to remind Tenet that the source for the alleged mobile labs, Curveball, is not reliable. Hey, boss, youre not going to use that stuff in the speech? There are real problems with that, Drumheller says. Tenet, distracted and tired, tells him not to worry. [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 184; Washington Post, 6/25/2006]
Entity Tags: Tyler Drumheller, George J. Tenet, Richard Dearlove
Category Tags: Biological weapons trailers, Powells Speech to UN, Curveball Fabrications "[/quote]

OK, let's assume that is accurate, even though it's clearly on a rabid anti-war site. Again...what does that mean? Curveball or not, didn't we think Saddam had WMD when Tenet worked for your favorite President?

Quote:

Gosh those WMD seem to be a big focal point for something you seem to indicate was just a minor issue?

Hold on...is it my site? You're criticizing me for what's on a site YOU linked to?

Quote:

Besides I thought you didn't like delving into the past? Like Cheney's statement from 1994 saying what a mistake it would to go to Iraq.

Nonsense. I never said anything of the kind. I addressed Cheney's statement, and at no time did I say that.

Quote:

And yes by the way the inspectors you mention were saying he didn't have anything!

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you go to a store and you're looking for a certain product. You hear no one is supposed to have it because it's not being made anymore. But, you've also hear rumors of others finding the product at this one store. Plus, you're pretty sure you've seen other people WITH the product on the street. So you go to the store and they say "nope, we don't know what you're talking about." Oh, and there is the whole section of the store they don't let you into. Now keep in mind, you saw three people in the parking lot walking out with the product as well. What do you conclude...do you just go home and assume they never had it to begin with? I mean, clearly all those people are lying and trying to trick you!

Of course, the point is the inspectors never had full access. It was a farce.

Quote:

If you want there's quite a bit more damning stuff in that timeline that I could pull up. But what would be the point? You saw some of it last time this came up and I printed for you. Face it SDW you just don't want to look at the reality because it doesn't jibe with your preconceived notions.

It's a site with a clear anti-war agenda. Even so, it's easy to see the pattern of Iraq's deception and non-compliance. Still, you act as if what you posted was the bible. It's not. Surely by your age, which you like to quote all the time, you must understand the concept of neutral point-of-view. Here is a link in case you never learned that lesson.

A good atlernative would have been something other than the mess we're in right now.

Pathetic dodge. I asked for an alternative. You can't provide one. The choices were to ignore Saddam and leave him alone, continue bombing him every few years while leaving sanctions in place, or invade. That's all, folks.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

q[uote]
and " Evening February 4, 2003: CIA Officer Reminds Tenet that Source for Mobile Labs is Not Reliable CIA Director George Tenet calls Tyler Drumheller at home and asks for the phone number of Richard Dearlove, the British intelligence chief. Tenet wants to get Dearlove’s approval to use British intelligence in Powell’s speech to the UN. Drumheller takes the opportunity to remind Tenet that the source for the alleged mobile labs, Curveball, is not reliable. “Hey, boss, you’re not going to use that stuff in the speech…? There are real problems with that,” Drumheller says. Tenet, distracted and tired, tells him not to worry. [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 184; Washington Post, 6/25/2006]
Entity Tags: Tyler Drumheller, George J. Tenet, Richard Dearlove
Category Tags: Biological weapons trailers, Powells Speech to UN, Curveball Fabrications "

OK, let's assume that is accurate, even though it's clearly on a rabid anti-war site. Again...what does that mean? Curveball or not, didn't we think Saddam had WMD when Tenet worked for your favorite President?

Hold on...is it my site? You're criticizing me for what's on a site YOU linked to?

Nonsense. I never said anything of the kind. I addressed Cheney's statement, and at no time did I say that.

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you go to a store and you're looking for a certain product. You hear no one is supposed to have it because it's not being made anymore. But, you've also hear rumors of others finding the product at this one store. Plus, you're pretty sure you've seen other people WITH the product on the street. So you go to the store and they say "nope, we don't know what you're talking about." Oh, and there is the whole section of the store they don't let you into. Now keep in mind, you saw three people in the parking lot walking out with the product as well. What do you conclude...do you just go home and assume they never had it to begin with? I mean, clearly all those people are lying and trying to trick you!

Of course, the point is the inspectors never had full access. It was a farce.

It's a site with a clear anti-war agenda. Even so, it's easy to see the pattern of Iraq's deception and non-compliance. Still, you act as if what you posted was the bible. It's not. Surely by your age, which you like to quote all the time, you must understand the concept of neutral point-of-view. Here is a link in case you never learned that lesson.

Pathetic dodge. I asked for an alternative. You can't provide one. The choices were to ignore Saddam and leave him alone, continue bombing him every few years while leaving sanctions in place, or invade. That's all, folks.[/QUOTE]

1 or 3 are the only options that have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

And you always attack the source. Always even if it's CNN!

First, show me in my post where I attacked the source. I mean the one you just quoted.

Secondly, I do often dismiss or attack sources that are clearly biased. That said, I do like to point out what POV an article is written from. Often you'll post something and opnely state that it's "fact" or imply that it was written with a neutral POV, when in fact it's not. All I'm saying about your previous source was that it had a clear anti-war POV. That doesn't invalidate it, but it must be taken into consideration. You clearly did not do that. You posted it as "what happened" without qualifying it at all.

Thirdly, options one and three had their problems. Iraq was under sanctions that were hurting the population. I suppose we could have just kept containing him, but the judgement was made after 9/11 that we couldn't do that with such states and individuals. I think that conclusion was very reasonable and to be expected after we got hit like we did. We had 3,000 people dead in the streets of South Manhattan. The government decided that wasn't going to happen again, nor was Saddam going to be allowed to pass of a WMD to one of the networks that would hit us. Given that Saddam had openly praised 9/11 (I believe the only world leader to do so, including Cuba, NK, Libya, etc), it was not crazy to think me might do just that. The final option, that of just ignoring him? Well again...I guess we could have, but who knows what would have happened then. We ignored him the late 80's and he ended up invading and raping Kuwait. Look what we had to do then.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

We ignored him the late 80's and he ended up invading and raping Kuwait. Look what we had to do then.

Well, 'invading and raping' applies more to Iraq now I think.

But back in the real world, it so happens that Iraq has a legitimate claim on Kuwait as it was actually a part of Iraq until carved up by the British who installed a fascist dictatorship.

In fact, at the time of Saddam's invasion the al-Sabah family dictatorship in Kuwait were possibly the worst human rights abusers on the planet with torture and political murder an almost daily occurrence.

Things have improved - marginally - ie, women were granted the vote in 2006 but torture continues to be endemic and Kuwait is now the world-leader in human trafficking.

Despite the lies and bleating of the brainwashed wingers, there is little doubt the Kuwait people would have been better off under Saddam - just like the Iraqi people now can say exactly the same.

Remember; the people denying this are the people who are supporting the bombing, chaos and murder inflicted on the Iraqi people....that tells you all you need to know about how much they care about the issue.

It's all just another political point to them....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

But back in the real world, it so happens that Iraq has a legitimate claim on Kuwait as it was actually a part of Iraq until carved up by the British who installed a fascist dictatorship.

Kuwait was a sovereign state. Funny how that only matters when it's convenient.

Quote:

In fact, at the time of Saddam's invasion the al-Sabah family dictatorship in Kuwait were possibly the worst human rights abusers on the planet with torture and political murder an almost daily occurrence.

Whatever. Thats a crock of shit. Prove it. And even if it was, it doesn't mean Saddam could invade.

Quote:

Things have improved - marginally - ie, women were granted the vote in 2006 but torture continues to be endemic and Kuwait is now the world-leader in human trafficking.

I'm sorry...what does that have to do with anything?

Quote:

Despite the lies and bleating of the brainwashed wingers, there is little doubt the Kuwait people would have been better off under Saddam - just like the Iraqi people now can say exactly the same.

WHAT? Better off under Saddam? There is no case for that in either country. Especially Kuwait.

Quote:

Remember; the people denying this are the people who are supporting the bombing, chaos and murder inflicted on the Iraqi people....that tells you all you need to know about how much they care about the issue.

It's all just another political point to them....[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what that means. I've not heard anyone else claim that Saddam invading Kuwait was a good thing.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

No...I am saying his was legitimate, yours is not. And you have killed more people, tortured more people and raped more people.

Quote:

That's fucking crazy.

Hmm

Quote:

Kuwait was a sovereign state. Funny how that only matters when it's convenient.

Yes, like when the US wants to invade one. Iraq or Iran spring to mind.

It really is your duty to inform yourself if you want any credibility but anyway:

1710 is the official date on which the state of Kuwait became recognised. At the time, it was still under the Ottoman Empire, making borders incredibly subjective. Indeed, Middle Eastern borders were still subjective well into the latter half (or even quarter) of the 20th Century.

When the British eventually let their Arabian Gulf Emirates claim independence as the United Arab Emirates in 1971, a man spent months riding around the desert on a camel, asking every Bedouin tribe he came across which Emir they swore allegiance to. This is how the UAE borders were drawn up, and it's how Dubai comes to claim its mountain enclave of Hatta.

Surprisingly, given recent events, it would seem that the British had finally learned something from history by 1971.

The border between Iraq and Kuwait had been arbitrarily drawn in 1923, based on the notion that "nobody lives there anyway". Post Sykes-Picot and World War I British goals for the area were not particularly concerned with such trivialities as borders between the Mandate states and how this would affect their future under the self-determination they had promised these states. Britain was far more concerned with the oil in Iran, the likelihood of oil in Iraq and Kuwait, and how to get it all back to Britain.

Kuwait's Amirs of the al-Sabah family have governed the country for over 200 years....

The 1962 constitution provides for an elected National Assembly. In 1986, however, the
Amir dissolved the Assembly, imposed prior censorship on the press and added to existing
restrictions on political and civil rights of all Kuwaiti residents. Political parties were banned in
pre-invasion Kuwait.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and occupied it until February 28, 1991. When
compared to the seven months preceding the invasion, reports of human rights violations in
Kuwait increased in the months immediately following the withdrawal of Iraqi forces. The most
serious abuses were reported during the period from March to late May, 1991. The majority of
those who are reported to have suffered human rights abuses are Palestinians, Iraqis and Bedoons (stateless individuals, many of whom trace their ancestry to nomadic Bedouins in the Kuwaiti and Arabian desert.)

Further abuses fully documented in the report.

Quote:

I'm sorry...what does that have to do with anything?

It shows that the fascists in control then are still in control now and all thanks to their western allies. Just like the Sauds really.

Quote:

WHAT? Better off under Saddam? There is no case for that in either country. Especially Kuwait.

How many Iraqis do you actually know?

I have just got to know an Iraqi Christian doctor. He hated Saddam. But he had a good practice in Baghdad. His wife was a surgeon. His daughters were lawyers. They had three houses - one a luxury villa by the sea.

Now they have nothing...some bombed out property, maybe bulldozed, who knows? And somewhere the graves of family members killed since the 'liberation', and of course they can't visit the graves because they can never go back.

So now they live in a one room flat, his wife makes houmous and muhammara and he sells it to people like me from a pokey little stall in the market.

Maybe when I know him better I'll invite him around for coffee and a nargile and we can fire up my Powerbook so you can tell him yourself how much better off he is.

Quote:

It's all just another political point to them....

I have no idea what that means. I've not heard anyone else claim that Saddam invading Kuwait was a good thing.

I never said it was a good thing. I said that Iraq has a legitimate claim on Kuwait and life under Saddam was not the hell you claim it was.

Guess what? Life under Hitler wasn't that bad either... you seem to have a need to believe that just because someone has been designated 'evil' then life under their rule must be hell.

It doesn't work that way.

Of course it sometimes does work the other way; people designated as 'good' or 'allies' (ie Sauds and Al-Sabahs) could very well create a hell on earth for their citizens...

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

No...I am saying his was legitimate, yours is not. And you have killed more people, tortured more people and raped more people.

His was completely illegitimate. Ours was done with good intentions, but clearly the main reason for going to war turned out not too exist. That reason was supported by all of the world's major intelligence agencies.

Quote:

Hmm

Yes, like when the US wants to invade one. Iraq or Iran spring to mind.

It really is your duty to inform yourself if you want any credibility but anyway:

1710 is the official date on which the state of Kuwait became recognised. At the time, it was still under the Ottoman Empire, making borders incredibly subjective. Indeed, Middle Eastern borders were still subjective well into the latter half (or even quarter) of the 20th Century.

When the British eventually let their Arabian Gulf Emirates claim independence as the United Arab Emirates in 1971, a man spent months riding around the desert on a camel, asking every Bedouin tribe he came across which Emir they swore allegiance to. This is how the UAE borders were drawn up, and it's how Dubai comes to claim its mountain enclave of Hatta.

Surprisingly, given recent events, it would seem that the British had finally learned something from history by 1971.

The border between Iraq and Kuwait had been arbitrarily drawn in 1923, based on the notion that "nobody lives there anyway". Post Sykes-Picot and World War I British goals for the area were not particularly concerned with such trivialities as borders between the Mandate states and how this would affect their future under the self-determination they had promised these states. Britain was far more concerned with the oil in Iran, the likelihood of oil in Iraq and Kuwait, and how to get it all back to Britain.

Uh, thanks for history lesson, ass. I understand the history and don't need you to post it. None of it...NONE of it makes Saddam Hussein's invasion legit or "good." I mean really....I need to do a reality check here. Christ, I'm really talking to someone that believes Saddam was entitled to Kuwait and that their people would have been better off under him. Just need to let that sink in for a moment, because I don't think I've ever heard it before.

Quote:

It shows that the fascists in control then are still in control now and all thanks to their western allies. Just like the Sauds really.

Of course, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about at all.

Quote:

How many Iraqis do you actually know?

I have just got to know an Iraqi Christian doctor. He hated Saddam. But he had a good practice in Baghdad. His wife was a surgeon. His daughters were lawyers. They had three houses - one a luxury villa by the sea.

Now they have nothing...some bombed out property, maybe bulldozed, who knows? And somewhere the graves of family members killed since the 'liberation', and of course they can't visit the graves because they can never go back.

So now they live in a one room flat, his wife makes houmous and muhammara and he sells it to people like me from a pokey little stall in the market.

Maybe when I know him better I'll invite him around for coffee and a nargile and we can fire up my Powerbook so you can tell him yourself how much better off he is.

Now hold on. You focused on KUWAIT. Short term, I will grant you Iraq was far more stable. But it was also ruled by a brutal dictator. Your doctor friend might have been better off, but the people who had their tongues cut out and appendages put through plastic shredders, they may not have been.

Quote:

I never said it was a good thing. I said that Iraq has a legitimate claim on Kuwait and life under Saddam was not the hell you claim it was.

Iraq had no legit claim, not according to oh, the United Nations. And life under Saddam, yeah...I bet it was a picnic.

Quote:

Guess what? Life under Hitler wasn't that bad either... you seem to have a need to believe that just because someone has been designated 'evil' then life under their rule must be hell.

It doesn't work that way.

Of course it sometimes does work the other way; people designated as 'good' or 'allies' (ie Sauds and Al-Sabahs) could very well create a hell on earth for their citizens...

I'm sure there were positive aspects to living under Hitler and Saddam. But that doesn't change the fact that both were brutal dictators, now does it? It doesn't mean they should be in power. And I've never claimed that I love the Saudis either. Clearly we've been in bed with them for oil, which I support ending ASAP, not that it'll happen.

The problem is here you're making a number of assumptions and then trying argue on them. Of course, many are false. I don't think Saudi Arabia is "good." I don't claim there were zero positive aspects of life under Saddam. I am aware of the way Iraq was carved up by the Brits. None of changes the here and now. None of it changes the brutality of Saddam and his defiance of the entire world.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

His was completely illegitimate. Ours was done with good intentions, but clearly the main reason for going to war turned out not too exist. That reason was supported by all of the world's major intelligence agencies.

I'm gonna finally call you out on this.

Exactly what intelligence agencies are you talking about here? Or are you talking out of your butt?

CIA... ok.

Who else? Name one. Italy? Give me a break.

British intelligence... said there was "no justification" for war. The evidence for WMD was "sporadic and patchy". But you make it out to sound like MI6 was in 100% agreement with Bush. They were not.

How many intelligence agencies refuted the forged Niger documents?

The fact is that you are still "repeating the lie". You're playing the good Rovian disciple.

There was no "agreement" among "all of the world's major intelligence agencies".

I'd ask you to stop lying, but I don't think you are lying. I think you honestly believe what you're saying is true. However, you're ignorantly repeating someone else's lie, and because that lie supports your position, you're not even willing to take the slightest look at the veracity of your statement.

His was completely illegitimate. Ours was done with good intentions, but clearly the main reason for going to war turned out not too exist. That reason was supported by all of the world's major intelligence agencies.

It turned out to not exist because it had been lied about - that's what makes it illegitimate.

Intelligence Agency line is wrong. Please stop repeating it.

Quote:

Uh, thanks for history lesson, ass.

Please do not resort to insult. Thank you. It demeans you and your theories.

I don't need an apology but you might adjust your behaviour for the common good.

Quote:

I understand the history and don't need you to post it. None of it...NONE of it makes Saddam Hussein's invasion legit or "good." I mean really....I need to do a reality check here. Christ, I'm really talking to someone that believes Saddam was entitled to Kuwait and that their people would have been better off under him. Just need to let that sink in for a moment, because I don't think I've ever heard it before.

Iraq - not Saddam but the country of Iraq - had and still does have a legitimate claim on Kuwait because the area now called Kuwait was once part of the area now called Iraq.

This is exactly the sort of thing 90% of wars and territorial disputes have always been about - in fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard you support exactly the same argument re Israel. And even if not, that is the argument Israel uses: that Palestinian land was once Israeli land and that justifies fighting and occupying it.

So it is with Iraq and Kuwait.

Quote:

Of course, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about at all.

But it does: your argument is that Saddam's people are better off because a fascist dictator has been removed.

Therefore you are using a yardstick of degrees of 'fascist dictatorness' and as evidence of this you cite Kuwait.

I am pointing out that by your own yardstick the people of Kuwait were suffering from a worse dictator, therefore, even if both were 'utterly evil' if one is worse than the other than it still qualifies as 'better off' to be toiling under the lesser.

I would be better off living under Hitler's control than Ghengis Khan's for example. You really need to rid yourself of the reductionist mentality that makes you think Hitler would be 'good'.

Either that or stop making silly comparisons.

Quote:

Now hold on. You focused on KUWAIT. Short term, I will grant you Iraq was far more stable. But it was also ruled by a brutal dictator. Your doctor friend might have been better off, but the people who had their tongues cut out and appendages put through plastic shredders, they may not have been.

And here we have it. Your whole 'Saddam is evil' myopia is almost on the level of an implant. It is based on just such propaganda as you have just shown.

And there you have the long and short of the available evidence for a human-shredding machine an uncorroborated statement made by an individual in northern Iraq, hearsay comments made by someone widely suspected of being a bullshitter (who, like the Australian Prime Minister, made his comments about the shredder shortly after Clwyd first wrote of it in the Times), and a record book, in Arabic, that mentions mincing but whose whereabouts are presently unknown.

Other groups have no recorded accounts of a human shredder.

A spokesman at Amnesty International tells me that his inquiries into the shredder story drew a blank. We checked it with our people here, and we have no information about a shredder. Widney Brown, deputy programme director of Human Rights Watch, says: We dont know anything about a shredder, and have not heard of that particular form of execution or torture.

They can't even cite where it came from - the article above claims it was from a prisoner at Abu Ghraib (real reliable source there) while this article claims it was from an Iraqi woman.

By the way, why don't we just do the stats to find out how bad things were? It's quite simple.

From the above first linked article:

Saddam was a cruel and ruthless tyrant who murdered many thousands of his own people (at least 17,000 according to Amnesty; 290,000 according to Human Rights Watch)

Let's take the median figure: 130,000 murders in 24 years.

I put it to you that if you want to compare him with other dictators to find out how bad he was - and if you do not then please provide your reasons why he is so special even if he is not as bad as them (or is it that the worse ones are somehow 'ok'?) - you will find he is nowhere near the top of the league.

Btw, I notice you always cite Kuwait as one of Saddam's crimes but never Iran which he also invaded. Without any legitimacy at all.

I wonder why this is?

Perhaps we can discuss the analogy in depth when you are supporting the Iraqification of Iran after the next US blood-letting begins and we can compare the deaths there.

Quote:

Iraq had no legit claim, not according to oh, the United Nations. And life under Saddam, yeah...I bet it was a picnic.

Well, you could have picnics for sure. Unlike in Saudi and Kuwait.

But let's look at some comparisons if you like. We can choose Saudi and Kuwait again because we are already in the area but also these two States have Western approval - and are widely regarded as 'good' and 'friends' so let's see what we see.

Saddam's Iraq: women could work! They even had great jobs - my friend I told you about, his wife was a surgeon. That's how they got to own several luxurious properties - one even in here name!!!!!!!
Saudi and Kuwait: women can't own property. But it's ok - they are not allowed outside without a male family member.

I wonder if you have ever been to a country which is under dictatorship? Do you really know what it is like?

I lived in Damascus for a while under the old man Asad. Yes, people lived in fear, yes, people were tortured and murdered and yes, everyone wanted 'freedom' but you know what? They managed to live, love and do business while waiting for it...

I really don't think you should be claiming that they would be better off living in a bombed out shell with no electricity, no water, dead family members and no hope for the future. I really don't.

Quote:

I'm sure there were positive aspects to living under Hitler and Saddam. But that doesn't change the fact that both were brutal dictators, now does it?

No, it doesn't

Quote:

It doesn't mean they should be in power.

Nor does it mean that:

a) the US should be the ones to 'fix it'
b) that it should be fixed in the way you have 'fixed' Iraq

Quote:

And I've never claimed that I love the Saudis either. Clearly we've been in bed with them for oil, which I support ending ASAP, not that it'll happen.

If you knew what you were talking about you would claim the Saudis are far, far worse than Saddam ever was. In fact, if (big if) they ever come with in the US cross-hairs and the propaganda ratchets up that is exactly what you will be claiming.

But as much as I despise the Saudi regime and want to see it removed, I would never in a million years support a US action to do it.

It's not the fact that they do these things. it's the manner of the doing...they are like a malfunctioning Terminator drone with the Brain Chip fried and the phaser gun stuck on 11......

Quote:

The problem is here you're making a number of assumptions and then trying argue on them. Of course, many are false. I don't think Saudi Arabia is "good." I don't claim there were zero positive aspects of life under Saddam. I am aware of the way Iraq was carved up by the Brits. None of changes the here and now. None of it changes the brutality of Saddam and his defiance of the entire world.

No, the problem is that the arguments you have marshalled in support of your contention do not hold water.

You simply can produce no justifying evidence for your position - and this is hardly surprising as it is based solely on emotion and not logic.

You remind me in many ways of those rumoured Japanese troops still fighting WW2 somewhere in a jungle 50 years after the war ended.

The government that sent them there has forgotten all about them and the world has changed irrevocably but there they are...still fighting for the 'Fatherland', still repeating the propaganda, still 'doing their duty'.....

And everyone else in the real world has moved on....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Exactly what intelligence agencies are you talking about here? Or are you talking out of your butt?

CIA... ok.

Who else? Name one. Italy? Give me a break.

British intelligence... said there was "no justification" for war. The evidence for WMD was "sporadic and patchy". But you make it out to sound like MI6 was in 100% agreement with Bush. They were not.

How many intelligence agencies refuted the forged Niger documents?

The fact is that you are still "repeating the lie". You're playing the good Rovian disciple.

There was no "agreement" among "all of the world's major intelligence agencies".

I'd ask you to stop lying, but I don't think you are lying. I think you honestly believe what you're saying is true. However, you're ignorantly repeating someone else's lie, and because that lie supports your position, you're not even willing to take the slightest look at the veracity of your statement.

Oh stop. EVERY major intel agency in the world believed Saddam had weapons. The Israelis. The French. The British. The Russians. The Germans. And, the US. They all knew Saddam had weapons, or thought they knew.

Yes, there were forged documents. Yes, there was disagreement on certain items. And yes, many nations disagreed with actually going to war. But there was universal agreement that Saddam had WMD.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Oh stop. EVERY major intel agency in the world believed Saddam had weapons. The Israelis. The French. The British. The Russians. The Germans. And, the US. They all knew Saddam had weapons, or thought they knew.

Yes, there were forged documents. Yes, there was disagreement on certain items. And yes, many nations disagreed with actually going to war. But there was universal agreement that Saddam had WMD.

Ok. First ownage...

Quote:

MI6 opposed revealing details of its intelligence and, at any event, it didn't back up the claims Mr Blair wanted the dossier to make. The latest Joint Intelligence Committee assessment, dated Friday, March 15, said information on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was "sporadic and patchy".

It was barely able to back up the claim that Saddam had any sort of weapons programme, confining itself to concluding: "We believe Iraq retains some production equipment, and some small stocks of chemical warfare agent precursors, and may have hidden small quantities of agents and weapons. There is no intelligence on any biological agent production facilities."

You only scream "every one" without knowing the truth about it because that's the Bushco lie you swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Did you see the intelligence reports? Did YOU? So how did you hear what they supposedly said? Oh yeah... Bush said so.

Meanwhile, wouldn't you say the international intelligence agency IN CHARGE of determining whether Saddam had WMD might have known better? Please remind me... what did THEY say? And were they not one of the "major intel agencies" about WMD at the time?

So you scream "EVERY major intel agency in the world believed Saddam had weapons," but I've already pointed out two who did not.

Oh... and weren't there intelligence memos to the president himself that said there were no WMD? I guess they were not from one of the "major intel agencies".

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." - Vladimir Putin, October 10, 2002

So... are you a liar, or were you mistaken? Which is it?

Just in case you feel like attacking the source, here's CNN with the same quote. Seems like Putin actually said this, at the time when you're claiming Russia believed Saddam had WMD. Clearly you're either a liar, or you were mistaken or misinformed.

If you want me to keep going I can find plenty of reports of France and Germany being out of the loop as well. Want me to do it?

Or are you just going to keep lying? After seeing the evidence I've presented, then it's clear that if you keep saying it now, it could no longer be a mistake. It would now be a lie. Are you a liar? Are you?

Whatever tonton. There's no talking to you. You'll just keep finding cherry picked quotes that don't tell the whole story, just like the Putin quote. You'll continue to ignore the motivations behind such statements by Russia, France et al. These are countries that had significant business dealing with Iraq. In addition, Russia certainly did not want the US to expand its presence in the region and pick off one of Russia's allies. You're completely ignoring the geopolitical component of any statements you find. I find that just a tad bit ironic in light of the fact that everything Bush does is motivated my politics according to you. Moreover, you utterly ignore Israel, which has one of the most advanced intelligence operations the planet. I suppose they don't count, those fucking Zionists.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Whatever tonton. There's no talking to you. You'll just keep finding cherry picked quotes that don't tell the whole story, just like the Putin quote. You'll continue to ignore the motivations behind such statements by Russia, France et al. These are countries that had significant business dealing with Iraq. In addition, Russia certainly did not want the US to expand its presence in the region and pick off one of Russia's allies. You're completely ignoring the geopolitical component of any statements you find. I find that just a tad bit ironic in light of the fact that everything Bush does is motivated my politics according to you. Moreover, you utterly ignore Israel, which has one of the most advanced intelligence operations the planet. I suppose they don't count, those fucking Zionists.

Whatever tonton. There's no talking to you. You'll just keep finding cherry picked quotes that don't tell the whole story, just like the Putin quote. You'll continue to ignore the motivations behind such statements by Russia, France et al. These are countries that had significant business dealing with Iraq. In addition, Russia certainly did not want the US to expand its presence in the region and pick off one of Russia's allies. You're completely ignoring the geopolitical component of any statements you find. I find that just a tad bit ironic in light of the fact that everything Bush does is motivated my politics according to you. Moreover, you utterly ignore Israel, which has one of the most advanced intelligence operations the planet. I suppose they don't count, those fucking Zionists.

Those "fucking Zionists" as you (jokingly?) refer to how you define anyone who levels even the slightest criticism of Israel... seem to be able to do anything in the world with impunity. To equate the Zionist fringe with ordinary Jews is like associating extreme Islamist Caliphates with Mr. ordinary Mohammed down the street ....

And Mossad?? a fat fucking lot of no-good they were on 9/11.

Can you interpret this? "We were here to document the event". Guilty, guilty, fucking 100% guilty. At the very least, accessory before and after the fact. No dispute..;. unless someone can prove conclusively that the above footage is a fake, or some sick joke.

Here they are, 5 Mossad guys, admitting prior knowledge of 9/11, on an Israeli TV talk show, and even being there to film the attack, knowing full well that the US government, being loaded with NeoCons, will never take action against either them, or their employer, Osama bin Lad... oops... the Israeli government, and the US/UK/western mainstream media will toe that line, by default.

Call me an anti-Semite, if namecalling is your thing. Lets see a rebuttal.

I guess its coming up to "that time of year again".

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Those "fucking Zionists" as you (jokingly?) refer to how you define anyone who levels even the slightest criticism of Israel... seem to be able to do anything in the world with impunity. To equate the Zionist fringe with ordinary Jews is like associating extreme Islamist Caliphates with Mr. ordinary Mohammed down the street ....

And Mossad?? a fat fucking lot of no-good they were on 9/11.

Can you interpret this? "We were here to document the event". Guilty, guilty, fucking 100% guilty. At the very least, accessory before and after the fact. No dispute..;. unless someone can prove conclusively that the above footage is a fake, or some sick joke.

Here they are, 5 Mossad guys, admitting prior knowledge of 9/11, on an Israeli TV talk show, and even being there to film the attack, knowing full well that the US government, being loaded with NeoCons, will never take action against either them, or their employer, Osama bin Lad... oops... the Israeli government, and the US/UK/western mainstream media will toe that line, by default.

Call me an anti-Semite, if namecalling is your thing. Lets see a rebuttal.

I guess its coming up to "that time of year again".

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The shape of the end is critical. Currently the sphere is working best. But the new model with have a triangle....inside sphere. Stay tuned.

Facts are facts. No tinfoil required. A confession is as bad as it gets, inadvertent as it was.

Strange that the likes of SDW cannot face, and refuse to acknowledge reality when it doesn't conform to their mainstream-derived blinkered world. There is the mechanism by which some of the world's worst deeds go unpunished and uninvestigated.

SDW, if someone was caught videotaping the Oklahoma City bombings as they happened, or conducting an interview with the Columbine School shooters in which they described their plans, for example, would the FBI/US Government look the other way? Not one chance in a quadrillion years, and you damned well know it.

But here we have Israelis, caught flatfooted in complicity re. the 9/11 attacks, at the very least... and you would prefer to ignore the FACT that these people knew beforehand, and then just brush it off. Perhaps your philosophy is, because the Jewish people suffered so much during the Holocaust and have ridden high on worldwide public sympathy in the decades following WW2, you feel that Israel is justified in getting away with whatever the fuck it can, with impunity, regardless of whether their intelligence agency had a part to play (or more) in attacks on our own nation.

Shame on you SDW. There are two words for people with your attitude, or similar:
a) Appeaser, and (b) Traitor.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

There are two words for people with your attitude, or similar:
a) Appeaser, and (b) Traitor.

Can we add to those ranks those folks who want to give Prez Tom, Hugo, and the like a place at the table? And also those who like trashing to troops in the field? Appeasers? Traitors? *coughharryreidcough*